MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769536523 · doi:10.1002/pfi.21727

Evidence-Based Survey Design: The Use of a Midpoint on the Likert Scale

2017· article· en· W2769536523 on OpenAlexaff
Seung Youn Chyung, Katherine A. Roberts, Ieva Swanson, Andrea Hankinson

Bibliographic record

VenuePerformance Improvement Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLikert scaleMidpointScale (ratio)Computer scienceSurvey researchPsychologyManagement scienceApplied psychologyMathematicsEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Likert-type scales are often used in survey instruments, and practitioners and researchers need to clearly understand the appropriate use of a midpoint in these scales. The authors of this article explore research studies from various disciplines to indicate that there are circumstances when a midpoint should be included and others where it should not. They provide tables, summarizing the benefits and problems in each case as well as evidence-based strategies to employ.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.308
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.454
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3080.454
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.905
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.411 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations823
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerformance Improvement JournalSame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207